Socialist part attacks Socialist Cuba

[Hawker]

Why 'Socialist Party' attacks socialist Cuba
The new pamphlet Cuba - Socialism and Democracy by Peter Taaffe, one of the leaders of the Socialist Party (ex-Labour Militant) is a tedious and mendacious attempt to rewrite the history of the Cuban revolution to match his own tired and reactionary dogma.

For Taaffe, Cuba is not a socialist country but a 'deformed workers' state' ruled by a 'bureaucratic privileged elite'. This is because, Taaffe claims, the Cuban revolution was based in the countryside, predominantly on the support of the 'peasantry', and not on the industrial workers in the towns and cities. In fact, the majority of Cubans in the countryside were not 'peasants' but landless rural workers. Furthermore, the guerrilla war in the countryside was fuelled by a complimentary movement among workers in the cities, culminating in a general strike in defence of the guerrilla army as it entered Havana.

As well as twisting the facts, Taaffe fails utterly to understand imperialism. Thus he is at a loss to explain why the Cuban revolutionaries not only carried out agricultural reform, but later expropriated all foreign-owned assets and nationalised Cuban industry. Taaffe ascribes this to a mixture of unfortunate tactical errors on the part of the US, forcing Castro into the arms of the Soviet Union. In fact, the US imperialists wanted to destroy the Cuban revolution from the outset and have never ceased to try to do so. Soviet support gave the young revolution breathing space. The choice was to capitulate to the imperialists or to take them on and defend the democratic revolution by moving forward to socialism. Communists such as Che Guevara and Raúl Castro knew this very well and were planning the socialist transition from an early stage. Many of the Cuban bourgeois and petit-bourgeois elements who had supported the democratic revolution wavered. The Cuban people, both rural and urban workers, had no doubt about which side they stood on. When Fidel pronounced the socialist nature of the revolution on the eve of the Bay of Pigs invasion by US-backed forces, it wasn't just a dramatic rallying call, but a recognition of historical necessity. This is the dialectic of revolution - something Taaffe, with his mechanistic world view, cannot grasp.


Democracy in Cuba
In claiming there is no worker's democracy in Cuba, Taaffe ignores the evidence. He characterises the local Committees for the Defence of the Revolution (CDRs) as vehicles of oppression. The vast majority of the Cuban people are members of a CDR. Created to involve the mass of the people in the struggle against counter-revolution, CDR chairs are elected by the local people and today function as neighbourhood social and welfare committees.Taaffe does not even mention the Cuban electoral system, in which candidates are accountable and recallable, nor the tens of thousands of workplace and neighbourhood meetings at which Cubans debate government proposals.

Taaffe does mention favourably the workers' militia formed after the revolution as an example of workers' democracy in action, but fails to mention that the militias still exist and Cuban workers are still armed. He ignores the millions of Cubans who time after time come out onto the streets in support of the revolution.

When Taaffe tries to argue that the Cuban leadership is a privileged elite, the very cases he cites are those where the Cuban Communist Party (PCC) took action to cleanse their ranks during the rectification campaign of the 1980s. The PCC has maintained a constant ideological campaign against corruption and taken strong practical measures to stamp it out.

Why has he bothered?
At one level, such people as Taaffe in the Socialist Party and their opposite numbers in the SWP, cannot ignore Cuba at a time when it is attracting huge international support because of its leading role in the struggle against imperialism, world poverty and environmental destruction. They must constantly try to justify their opposition to Cuba to members who might start wondering why a so-called socialist organisation attacks a socialist country. Taaffe and the Socialist Party are trying to protect their own dwindling constituency.

Acid test for socialists
Support for Cuba is an acid test for revolutionaries. Groups such as the Socialist Party and the SWP proclaim socialism while attacking Cuba. They identify the 'real' working class only as those organised within the urban 'labour movement'. In Britain this means those within the orbit of the trade unions and the Labour Party. But in imperialist Britain this 'labour movement' is dominated by the middle class and the privileged section of the working class. It is reactionary, racist and anti-socialist because it benefits, for the time being at least, from the profits of imperialism. Taaffe's Socialist Party and the SWP are rooted within the 'labour movement'. This explains why they play down the role of imperialism. Objectively the Socialist Party and the SWP are not on the side of socialist revolution; not in Cuba, nor in Britain, nor anywhere else. The 'logic' of their argument leads them to the grotesque position of calling on Cuban workers to overthrow their socialist government, while calling on British workers to vote for the imperialist Labour Party.

[Hawker]

Sorry the title meant to say Socialist party attacks Socialist Cuba,forgot the y on party :lol:

[Scottish_Militant]

where can i read the pamphlet?

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 04:51 PM
Why 'Socialist Party' attacks socialist Cuba
The new pamphlet Cuba - Socialism and Democracy by Peter Taaffe, one of the leaders of the Socialist Party (ex-Labour Militant) is a tedious and mendacious attempt to rewrite the history of the Cuban revolution to match his own tired and reactionary dogma.

For Taaffe, Cuba is not a socialist country but a 'deformed workers' state' ruled by a 'bureaucratic privileged elite'. This is because, Taaffe claims, the Cuban revolution was based in the countryside, predominantly on the support of the 'peasantry', and not on the industrial workers in the towns and cities. In fact, the majority of Cubans in the countryside were not 'peasants' but landless rural workers. Furthermore, the guerrilla war in the countryside was fuelled by a complimentary movement among workers in the cities, culminating in a general strike in defence of the guerrilla army as it entered Havana.

As well as twisting the facts, Taaffe fails utterly to understand imperialism. Thus he is at a loss to explain why the Cuban revolutionaries not only carried out agricultural reform, but later expropriated all foreign-owned assets and nationalised Cuban industry. Taaffe ascribes this to a mixture of unfortunate tactical errors on the part of the US, forcing Castro into the arms of the Soviet Union. In fact, the US imperialists wanted to destroy the Cuban revolution from the outset and have never ceased to try to do so. Soviet support gave the young revolution breathing space. The choice was to capitulate to the imperialists or to take them on and defend the democratic revolution by moving forward to socialism. Communists such as Che Guevara and Raúl Castro knew this very well and were planning the socialist transition from an early stage. Many of the Cuban bourgeois and petit-bourgeois elements who had supported the democratic revolution wavered. The Cuban people, both rural and urban workers, had no doubt about which side they stood on. When Fidel pronounced the socialist nature of the revolution on the eve of the Bay of Pigs invasion by US-backed forces, it wasn't just a dramatic rallying call, but a recognition of historical necessity. This is the dialectic of revolution - something Taaffe, with his mechanistic world view, cannot grasp.


Democracy in Cuba
In claiming there is no worker's democracy in Cuba, Taaffe ignores the evidence. He characterises the local Committees for the Defence of the Revolution (CDRs) as vehicles of oppression. The vast majority of the Cuban people are members of a CDR. Created to involve the mass of the people in the struggle against counter-revolution, CDR chairs are elected by the local people and today function as neighbourhood social and welfare committees.Taaffe does not even mention the Cuban electoral system, in which candidates are accountable and recallable, nor the tens of thousands of workplace and neighbourhood meetings at which Cubans debate government proposals.

Taaffe does mention favourably the workers' militia formed after the revolution as an example of workers' democracy in action, but fails to mention that the militias still exist and Cuban workers are still armed. He ignores the millions of Cubans who time after time come out onto the streets in support of the revolution.

When Taaffe tries to argue that the Cuban leadership is a privileged elite, the very cases he cites are those where the Cuban Communist Party (PCC) took action to cleanse their ranks during the rectification campaign of the 1980s. The PCC has maintained a constant ideological campaign against corruption and taken strong practical measures to stamp it out.

Why has he bothered?
At one level, such people as Taaffe in the Socialist Party and their opposite numbers in the SWP, cannot ignore Cuba at a time when it is attracting huge international support because of its leading role in the struggle against imperialism, world poverty and environmental destruction. They must constantly try to justify their opposition to Cuba to members who might start wondering why a so-called socialist organisation attacks a socialist country. Taaffe and the Socialist Party are trying to protect their own dwindling constituency.

Acid test for socialists
Support for Cuba is an acid test for revolutionaries. Groups such as the Socialist Party and the SWP proclaim socialism while attacking Cuba. They identify the 'real' working class only as those organised within the urban 'labour movement'. In Britain this means those within the orbit of the trade unions and the Labour Party. But in imperialist Britain this 'labour movement' is dominated by the middle class and the privileged section of the working class. It is reactionary, racist and anti-socialist because it benefits, for the time being at least, from the profits of imperialism. Taaffe's Socialist Party and the SWP are rooted within the 'labour movement'. This explains why they play down the role of imperialism. Objectively the Socialist Party and the SWP are not on the side of socialist revolution; not in Cuba, nor in Britain, nor anywhere else. The 'logic' of their argument leads them to the grotesque position of calling on Cuban workers to overthrow their socialist government, while calling on British workers to vote for the imperialist Labour Party.
Which socialist party?

[BOZG]

Socialist Party England & Wales, the English/Welsh section of the CWI. Peter Taaffe is the General Secretary of the SP and is quite right to call Cuba a "deformed workers' state" as it is not a socialist state. It is a state with some elements of nationalisation but controlled by a bureaucratic caste, much like ALL the other so-called "socialist states" and what the Soviet Union became, after Stalin took control. As for the reference to the SP not being on the side of social revolution, this is the ridiculous argument constantly made by the authoritarian left, for whom Castro can do no wrong such as the WWP and the Stalinist parties.


It is reactionary, racist and anti-socialist

I notice the author does not care to explain how the SP is reactionary and racist.


It's also ridiculous to lump both the SWP and SP together, as both parties have different opinions on what type of state Cuba is and have different opinions on what should be done in Cuba.
Also interesting, is the attack on the SP for having a base within the "labour movement".
Another complete error is the idea that the SP calls for the British working class to vote for Labour. Members of Militant, the forerunner of the SP, were expelled from the Labour party because they were the left-wing of the party and the CWI now calls for the formation of a new workers' party and states that the Labour Party is no longer a party that can be reclaimed by the working class.

There's no online version of the book that I know about but you can buy if from here (http://cgi.www.socialistparty.org.uk/cgi-bin/www.socialistparty.org.uk/more.pl?bkno=5&order=5515&cat=0&nextten=1&findword=Cuba&sortby=).

[BOZG]

Hawker,

Could you post the link to that article?

[Hawker]

http://www.ratb.org.uk/frfi/158_dogma.html

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Whoa, lets lay off the attacks on Cuba. Cuba is the last bastion of Socialism in the western hemisphere, and it's in danger of falling to US imperialism. Cuba is far more deserving of support then critisizm. Cuba isn't perfect, but now is not the time for that, I am behind Fidel 110%. When he calls, I am ready to answer.

[Kez]

if we dont attack Cuba from the left and change it to a truly revolutionary socialist state, it will be smashed by capitalism, id rather we changed it from a deformed workers state to socialist one, than a deformed workers state to a capitalist one.

[crazy comie]

i am in compleat agreement with kez.

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 04:36 PM
if we dont attack Cuba from the left and change it to a truly revolutionary socialist state, it will be smashed by capitalism, id rather we changed it from a deformed workers state to socialist one, than a deformed workers state to a capitalist one.
Hear, hear comrade

[BOZG]

Edit: Double Post

[Ernestocheguevara]

As an SP member! Oh No!!! What a fascist!!! I've heard it all already!!


I disagree with Taffee on some elements of Cuba, I have read the book and it is very good, generally.

I thankyou BornOfZapatasGuns for defending the party you are right on all counts and I have to agree with you!!! You have said what I thought when I read the initial post!

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 12:11 PM
Which socialist party?
it wasn't us (SP-USA) :D

[ComradeRobertRiley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 05:58 AM
Whoa, lets lay off the attacks on Cuba. Cuba is the last bastion of Socialism in the western hemisphere, and it's in danger of falling to US imperialism. Cuba is far more deserving of support then critisizm. Cuba isn't perfect, but now is not the time for that, I am behind Fidel 110%. When he calls, I am ready to answer.
True that comrade

[Kez]

the socialist party which is being refered to is SPEW (Socialist Party of England and Wales). I think we (Socialist Appeal) have a few good articles on Cuba, and for specific cases, such as its human rights record, in which we should attack it from the left, but defend it from imperialism, which regularly uses the death penalty (in Texas) and as we all know, regularly props up bloody dictators all over the show.

As for support of Fidel, again, same applies, i want him removed, not by capitalism, but by socialism

[Saint-Just]

For Taaffe, Cuba is not a socialist country but a 'deformed workers' state' ruled by a 'bureaucratic privileged elite'. This is because, Taaffe claims, the Cuban revolution was based in the countryside, predominantly on the support of the 'peasantry', and not on the industrial workers in the towns and cities.

I don't see why he criticises the revolution for having been created by the mass of peasants in Cuba. If he is a Trotskyist he undoubtedly considers himself and Leninist and so would be in favour of an alliance between peasantry and proletariat.

Secondly, the CWI and so forth should be ignored for their anti-British policies. If we turn Britian into a socialist state we want to build Britain into an even greatly more powerful and prosperous nation. Policies such as a maximum 35 hour working weak will make our nation weaker.

[Scottish_Militant]

I support Castro and his stance against imperialism, I also admire him greatly and I know the Cuban people do too.

It's the men around him that concern me, I think many of them are looking to make some money when he dies, Cuba will be in grave danger when this happens. As I've said all along though, socialism in a single island will be crushed eventualy by imperialism, but for saying this I suppose I'm a Nazi Trot or something?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

If the rest of the world were filled with glorious communist paradises, that would be the time to critisize Cuba, unfortunately it isn't. The Cubas need our support now more then ever. I see the capitalistic reforms that Cuba is taking as forced by the US as a result of the blockade. The Cuban govt. isn't about to watch it's people starve in the name of self-relience like the North Korea. Given the current affairs, I think that this can be overlooked. As long as Cuba is even nominally socialist, they will have my support. We need to defend Cuba because that is all we have. The way things are, you will never see me saying anything negative about Cuba. We should try to defend the Cuban revolution in it's hour of need. An attack from the left will result in a victory for the right. Your intentions are good, but now is not the time!

[Sensitive]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 6 2004, 02:54 PM
If he is a Trotskyist he undoubtedly considers himself and Leninist and so would be in favour of an alliance between peasantry and proletariat.
Didn't Trotsky oppose having an alliance between the working class and the peasantry in his pamphlet "Permanent Revolution"?

[Saint-Just]

If so it is a distinctly anti-Leninist idea.

[LSD]

Didn't Trotsky oppose having an alliance between the working class and the peasantry in his pamphlet "Permanent Revolution"?

no.

"Without an alliance of the proletariat with the peasantry the tasks of the democratic revolution cannot be solved, nor even seriously posed."
From Permanent Revolution and Results & Prospects, Chapter 10

[Guest1]

As for Cuba, what it needs is solidarity. Real solidarity requires people who are simultaneously critics and supporters, not yes-men. There is nothing wrong with realizing Cuba is not where it ought to be. We must fight to change it, fight to remove Castro. At the same time, we should fight to keep America away from it.

Chairman Mao:

What you speak of is a Capitalist's view of what is good for society. A 35 hour work week means better working conditions for the workers and higher employment.

[Kez]

The call for a 35 hour week is a transitional programme, it is not the end all, i would have thought some people would have been familiar with the tactic, where u show this as your manifesto, and at the same tiem show how capitalism cannot maintain this right, so we should fight for socialism to resolve our problems.

[Scottish_Militant]

Didn't Trotsky oppose having an alliance between the working class and the peasantry in his pamphlet "Permanent Revolution"?

Why don't you knuckleheads actually read up on things before spouting this drivel that exposes you to be stupid and ignorant. If you want to read Trotsky's works go to marxists.org and do so, then you wont have to keep looking so bloody foolish.

[crazy comie]

Cuba needs a new goverment and mayde even a new leader as it has become less socialist than it once was and was never quite a true workers state.

[Saint-Just]

no.

"Without an alliance of the proletariat with the peasantry the tasks of the democratic revolution cannot be solved, nor even seriously posed."
From Permanent Revolution and Results & Prospects, Chapter 10

Then the criticism made by this person, Taaffe is not from a Leninist perspective. I thought his party was Trotskyist.

The call for a 35 hour week is a transitional programme, it is not the end all, i would have thought some people would have been familiar with the tactic, where u show this as your manifesto, and at the same tiem show how capitalism cannot maintain this right, so we should fight for socialism to resolve our problems.

Perhaps, but that is not an idea that would have immediately occured to me. It seemed like it was what they believed rather than to win support.

What you speak of is a Capitalist's view of what is good for society. A 35 hour work week means better working conditions for the workers and higher employment.

It would only lead to higher unemployment in a capitalist economy. You could argue that our economy is advanced to a level that with a 35 hour week we could maintain good standards of living. However, to compete with capitalist economies and become a more powerful nation a 53 hour week would harm us.

[Guest1]

Ok, first off, I'm assuming a 35 hour work week would mean less work than you currently have in the UK. The fact is, this automatically means that to produce the same amount of labour, there would have to be more labourers. It's just fact, unless you plan on forcing the workers to work harder in those 35 hours.

Whether that means your economy takes a hit depends on too many factors to speculate upon. I will say however, that lower unemployment means more disposable income, more working class spending, therefore stimulation of the economy. This could be backed up by government spending int he sectors of healthcare and education. All of this can aid in not only avoiding economic recession, but in fact expanding the economy. It has been shown time and time again that more social spending and higher employment actually result in a bigger economy. Look at Sweden and Scandinavian "semi-Socialist Democracy" as an example.

Besides, the belief that socially-oriented spending and laws aside from being just, also economically benefit society, is what separates us from Capitalists. Is it not?

[Scottish_Militant]

Then the criticism made by this person, Taaffe is not from a Leninist perspective. I thought his party was Trotskyist.

Taaffe lost his bearings years ago, he's a nobody in the Marxist movement nowadays